What if Limbaugh or Rove Anchored Fox’s Presidential Coverage

Let’s imagine that Rush Limbaugh gives up his radio job and is hired by Fox News as a political commentator.

No problem here. Rush is a smart guy and his opinions would be interesting and provocative.

Now let’s imagine that Roger Ailes, who runs Fox News, decides that since Rush is immensely popular with viewers he ought to move on to bigger things beyond simply giving his opinions. So Ailes makes Limbaugh the anchor of Fox’s lucrative morning news show, and has him do political interviews, and moderate debates, and anchor the channel’s Sunday news program.

Anything big and political goes to Limbaugh. And a presidential election is looming, so Rush is going to be pretty busy deciding all sorts of things, like what gets covered and what doesn’t and how stories are played on TV.

And when liberals complain, as they surely would, Limbaugh defends himself, saying: “I’m not a radio talk show host anymore. That’s what I used to be. Now, I’m a serious journalist who is no longer a partisan.”

After they stop laughing, it comes out that Mr. Non Partisan Honest Journalist gave $75,000 to a foundation run by the conservative Koch brothers – a contribution to help further good causes, of course.

Except, Rush never told Fox News about the contribution and he never shared the information with his viewers – even after he grilled the liberal author of a book that was critical of the Koch brother’s foundation. In that interview, Rush claimed that the author, who had worked in politics, was a partisan. What Rush didn’t’ point out was that in addition to the hefty contribution he was still serving on various Koch Foundation panels. Oh yeah, the wife of one of the Koch brothers was running for president.

Rush’s boss, Fox News, says what he did was nothing more than an “honest mistake.” He apologized, Fox explained, so let’s move along, nothing to see here. And yes, Rush would still be heading up Fox’s presidential campaign coverage despite the fact that he’s close to Mrs. Koch, who’s running for president.

That, of course, would not satisfy liberals who would be calling for Limbaugh’s head on a platter. They would accuse Fox of crimes against humanity. They wouldn’t be satisfied to simply point out that what Limbaugh did violated fundamental journalistic ethics. They’d question not only his contribution, but also his very role as a journalist. On being a pundit, they’d grudgingly say, OK; objective journalist, never.

But even if Rush really did undergo some major transformation since he left radio, and somehow, miraculously, got rid of every last drop of his partisanship, he’d still make us wonder: Could this man who bludgeoned liberals day in and day out in his past life, could he really be fair to politicians who hold views with which he with passionately disagrees?

Who knows? Maybe he could be fair. But perceptions matter. And liberals, understandably, would perceive Limbaugh to be – at some level – what he always was – a take-no-prisoners political warrior.

And that’s just how many of us perceive George Stephanopoulos.

He would always be the guy who ran the “War Room” and who would throw his own grandmother under the bus if it would benefit his boss, Bill Clinton.

If you think the Limbaugh analogy is a bridge too far, then consider this instead: Would ABC News have hired Karl Rove – who also was a political warrior who helped elect a president two times – to be its chief political reporter? Would ABC News allow him to moderate presidential debates and give him the job of anchor on its politically oriented Sunday news show? Would ABC let him lead the network’s presidential campaign coverage if he not only worked for President Bush, but also gave big money to the former president’s foundation? Would they allow it if Laura Bush was running for president?

Of course ABC News wouldn’t. But why not? Like Stephanopoulos, Rove is smart. He also understands the intricacies of politics at the highest levels. The only significant difference between the two is that one is liberal and the other is conservative.

Or to put it another way: At ABC News (and the other networks) one is trusted to play fair and the other isn’t.

If you’re a liberal in the mainstream media, you fit right in. You’re considered reasonable and moderate. If you’re a conservative you’re viewed with suspicion. You’re seen as anything but reasonable or moderate. And that – more than Stephanopoulos’ ill-advised $75,000 contribution – is the real problem.

If what you say is all true–We Lose — Cover the mirror— Say “Kaddish”—Break out the salmon salad– –Lets eat

Russ Perrine

CBS Face The Nation presented a round table on Vietnam. Two rock solid notions were missing. (1) Vietnam was an ALLY of the United States during the entire extent of World War II. (2) President Kennedy told Walter Cronkite in a recorded interview a few weeks before he was assassinated “In the final analysis it is their war.”

brickman

Vietnam was not an independent country during WWII and thus had no foreign policy of its own. It was part of the French Empire.

Dan Smith

Boy is this so true.

Seven

Progressive thought and agenda trump anything that resembles logic every time. What is truth? What is right? To the progressive it is whatever gets them to their end, to what they believe to be “the way”. Truth be damed. A simple oop’s or slip in judgment will do for them, no matter how big the scandal.

brendan horn

I have a dream: I would love to see the day when the liberal media no longer feel the need to perpetrate the fraud that they are unbiased. Anyone with a mind should know by now that they are liars and deceivers. It would nice if they were forced to disclose who they vote for in elections.

Drew Page

And to think that I once believed that Stephanopoulos had some integrity after he wrote his book explaining why he distanced himself from the Clintons after the stained “blue dress” came out of the closet. George is a big a liar as Bill.

ph16

Liberals are gutless traitors who should be treated like the Rosenbergs. They were guilty and deserved to die. Their kids should have been put in the electric chair after them.

ph16

Fuck you liberals!!! I wish David Brock and George Soros would get cancer.

ph16

Hang Bob Hadley and John Smith!!! All of us conservatives should start killing liberals and pacificsts. They need to die!!!

Curt Parker

Bernie, we both know that logic need not apply to George or any other liberal commentator. We live in the Age of Deception. The whole Clinton Clan, Little George included, are masters of the game. Liberal voters don’t care about the destruction of America… until the fighting is on their street. Then they’ll crap their jeans.

JASVN67

News anchors aside, Obama’s IQ tests came back and they are negative. That’s the good news. The bad news is he is still the president.

TransplantedTexan

The main flaw in Bernie’s analysis is that Limbaugh’s bias is philosophical; he is a conservative, not a political operative for a specific candidate. Idea advocacy based upon personal beliefs is not the same as personal advocacy for personal gain.

cfioren317

Right, and Stephanopoulos’s political bias isn’t liberal I guess? Come on now. Whenever someone works for a candidate, they share personal political views with him or her. To think anything other way is being pretty obtuse.

TransplantedTexan

Thank you for saying what I just said.

Daiv

When it comes to journalism or politics a person can never be too liberal. Liberal journalist and liberal politicians just aren’t very introspective when it comes to examining their own credentials. Liberal commentators and politicians always refer to themselves as middle of the road and mainstream. I learned a long time ago that a right winger, conservative or a moderate was, and is anyone whose political philosophy is to the right of Karl Marx. That’s how the crazy, fanatical murderous National Socialists sometimes known as NAZIs are often described as right wingers by other left wingers. Communist and other socialist forms of government are organizations with no structural difference other than the degree and magnitude of those they choose to discredit by murder or other means available. And if Karl Marx or Lenin were alive today and they were being interviewed, today journalists would characterize them as main stream, moderate or maybe left leaning. they would never be called leftist extremist or controversial. Controversial is another description they reserve for anyone they claim is a conservative. In the political land or OZ you can never out liberal a liberal.

Drew Page

Liberals are people who want you to invite everyone to lunch, then leave before the bill comes.

Republicans are wimps they should not allow an ideologue to moderate any debate. They have weakly submitted to any shenanigans and been made fools in the process, Candy Crowley comes to mind and Bob Schieffer. ABC should fire Stephanopoulos just as Brain Williams is being fired, eventually.

chevron1144

Why in the world did the Republicans allow George Stephanopoulos to moderate their Primary debates? They really are the Party of stupid. If I were a Republican candidate, I would not take part in any debate that had a Liberal news personality moderating unless I was able to have a Conservative counterpart also moderating the debate.

JASVN67

Who said liars never prosper? We’ve been lied to so much by this Administration that it’s hard to recognize the truth anymore.

Drew Page

Simply don’t believe a word coming from any area of the Obama administration.

EddieD_Boston

The pretentious fools who call themselves journalists are vile.

Ted Crawford

The proper title for the overwhelming portion of the Media is actually “Propagandist’s”!

brickman

Then why do you expect them to be ” impartial”?

Integrity

Because they claim to be. QED

Ted Crawford

You assume facts not in evidence Comrade!

stmichrick

Brickhead; a commentator contributing to a candidate is MUCH different than a broadcast ‘journalist,’ which is how they position Steffy.

brickman

He didn’t contribute to a candidate.

stmichrick

Contributions to the Clinton Family is one and the same….anyone who wants to help the poor and sick will contribute to charities with better victim/admin ratios than that slush fund.

I didn’t see where Bernie called rove a conservative. I think Bernie was just saying Rove did the same basic job as Snuffalufugus, only Rove worked for a Republican and ABCwould never hire Rove, yet they hired Snuff.

Jeff Webb

>>I didn’t see where Bernie called rove a conservative<<

Third paragraph from the end.

brickman

Then again Fox News didn’t have a liberal Dem sitting with Megyn Kelly on election night.

Ted Crawford

Commenting on an Election, is a very different thing, than “Moderating” a Presidential Debate!

Drew Page

Don’t waste your time replying to “brickhead”. He obviously doesn’t understand the difference.

ulyssesmsu

Excellent, Bernie. You hit a home run with this one.

phukhed

Yeah Bernie you’re so smart. How do you do it?

smitty

Rove is no Conservative, he’s a RINO political operative for the Bush’s and Republican establishment. He’s equivalent to stephanopoulas and has no business posing as an independent election analyst. You might pass that along to FOX in the next staff meeting but of course they already know. Big government leftist mobsters, the hapless mainstream media, and the crony chamber of commerce rino’s are equally disgusting. They’ve all forgotten who their customer is. Steph and Rove should both go in favor of anyone with virtue.

Daiv

This discussion isn’t really about whether Rove is a RHINO or not

Stimpy

Rove is an admitted political operative who works to get republicans elected. Nothing wrong with that, and I enjoy his insights. Last I heard you don’t have to be a hard right super-conservative to be a republican.

docww

Bernie–This is very much old news but sometimes it pays to review the ridiculous.

I was talking about George Steph….what a political whore looks like….I think the other guy who deleted was joking…..trust me …no one who knows me would call me a liberal!!!!!

Randy

Interesting how many people attached to the Clintons end up getting tarnished by the misdeeds the Clintons get involved in and bring upon themselves. Sad how they abuse their “friends”. Sad how she can still be a viable candidate with all this obvious misconduct and extremely poor judgment. And you are right, no republican could ever withstand the firestorm that would descend upon them if they did anything even remotely like this.

Marvin Katzen

However you cut it, Stephanopoulos is a shill for Hillary Clinton. Just keep banging the drum.

Michael

Another good one Bernie. Thanks

justintime

Republicans/the right/Conservatives are wasting their time perpetually defending themselves against–what would the Dems do if, and it’s exactly what Democrats want Republicans to keep doing. Because when the Republicans waste all their time defending themselves against unfair treatment in the media, they are not focused on the important issues of the day and the Democrats have the Republicans perpetually back on their heels–restated, on the defensive–and that is exactly where the Dems want the Republicans/the right/Conservatives to stay as a distraction.

Tim Ned

Good post and I agree.

justintime

Thank you.

Shane

My solution is to totally ignore ABC news and to right it off as having a liberal bias, like every other TV news network, except for Fox News, which has a conservative bias.

brickman

That’s been an option the whole time. Most people don’t take it. The market speaks. ABC has 3 to 4 times Fox News’ viewership.

geoff mizel

It’s batter up. Bottom of the 9th. The Blue Leftists are up by 1.

As the clean up hitter for Red Rightie’s enters the batter’s box with 2 outs and bases loaded.

Forget it. The batter is out even before he entered the box.

Three consecutive wild pitches and each called a strike. Stop complaining, this is baseball and fairness our middle name.

Batter out, no advance of runners and the Blue Leftists win.

Any questions? Go see the Commissioner, retired President Barak Obama.

Ed Koziol

That big balloon from Texas, Rove will give all to get Senor Jeb elected for the republican candidate to run against Hitlary.Now saying that ABC did fire Boy george couldn’t he get a job as a jockey or one of Santas elvies at Christmas

Ted Crawford

MSNBC would gladly take him compared to the rest of their staff, George seems , almost, to be a real Journalist!

I adore you Bernie, but Rove is no conservative, he is a RINO who will push Jeb Bush the Democrat progressive faux Republican onto the ticket and that will alienate so many Republicans, they will not vote, or, they will write in another name, the name of a conservative.
That being said Bernie, your analysis is point on as usual. If Rush were a journalist, he would be trashed, thrashed and removed so fast for giving a donation to a conservative group, but Boy George Stephanopoulos will get a little wrist slap and all is well, whereas Rush would get the noose and be gone. The left is a double-standard mob of thug journalists who will lie, cheat, steal, rewrite history and news to better the left, up the left, prop the left, and down America.
Now, what I would like is Bernie Goldberg moderating the presidential debates along with economist Walter E. Williams or Thomas Sowell so we get a journalist who knows politics and economists who know economics and history without white washing anything

Who said life is fair….certainly not where politics and the media are concerned.

Liam

Limbaugh being fair to progressives? That would be like Hitler converting to Judiasm.

Observer

Depends on what the definition of “fair” is…

Shane

Or Georgie boy being fair when covering the elections.

Stimpy

Don’t use the word progressive. That has a positive connotation and is why the stinking liberals have adopted it. There’s nothing progressive about the current administration or about what Hillary would do as president.

Stand up like a man and take it on the chin Stephanopoulis! Oops! Pardon me. I see you are already standing up!

Jeff Webb

Oh, Peter, shame on you. (And keep up the good work!)

brickman

And while you’re at it, how about a hand for Bob Dole. ( since he ‘s one of your guys you’re probably not going to encourage me)

Tim Ned

Probably not. But Dole has a pretty good sense of humor.

brickman

Yes, he does. I know that he loved Dan Ackroyd’s portrayal of him and even loved Al Franken doing Pat Robertson more. And anyone who quotes Randy Quaid from the “Vacation” movies, can’t be all bad.

Ted Crawford

By the way, just what is that white gunk on his chin?

Ed I

What many are missing is the George S doesn’t have to coordinate with anyone to do and say what the Democrats prefer him to do. His thinking is in near lock step. Many of the liberal media are that way. They read the same hymnals, sing out of the same choir book, believe anything the Democratic leadership says and most of all ignore any and all foibles of what they consider is a popular candidate. However, in their hearts they truly believe they are unbiased. They have been in the bed, on the bandwagon for so long, that there is no real need for coordination. Ironically, if they do waver even a tiny bit then they are viciously attacked by the same liberal Democratic candidates they help elect. While Obama hates Fox, he generally holds the media in contempt. Remember so did the Clintons last time they were in office. If you hold your “friends” in contempt, those that helped you get elected imagine what they think if the rest of us.

El_Tigre_Loco

Cllintons? Heck Lyndon Johnson was the death knell.

veeper

Character, honesty and credibility went completely out of the democratic party with the clintons…..

Lack of Character, morals and honesty became the norm and acceptable with the clintons…..

However, Republicans MUST toe the line perfectly on Character, honesty and credibility…..

Democrats have reached such a low state in life that I can no longer have Democratic friends or family members…..

Many friendships will be broken because of the democrats and Clinton’s. Liberals brook no disagreement without labeling you with any name they can come up with. They are the most intolerant of the planet and want 100% obedience.The dems by pushing the Hillary beast have destroyed the party.They wanted power and instead got a flame out of massive proportions

Zack

Regarding your last statement, Veeper: I can also relate to that. And the reason is their undying defense of the Party over principles. In many cases, today’s Democrat Party’s ideals are in conflict with traditional values as exemplified by JFK, but friends and several family members can’t — or won’t — see the difference between then and now. They blindly vote and defend the “D”. Makes for uncomfortable get-togethers which we now avoid.

Ted Crawford

I’ve experienced the same phenomenon! Even with such clear examples of the huge differences between the, now extinct, Liberal Democrat and today’s Progressive Democrat !
Liberal – “Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, they attract them!” Walter Mondale
Progressive – “Gun bans are an idea who’s time has come!” Joseph Biden
Liberal (just barely) – “You should not examine Legislation in the light of the good it would convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered!” LBJ
Progressive – “We have to pass it to know what’s in it!” Nancy Pelosi

Niripsa K.

But to the True Believers it all sounds the same…

John Smith

“Republicans MUST toe the line perfectly on Character, honesty and credibility” Are you serious? Are you that gullible? The lies about the Iraq war, the lies about the Faulty intelligence about the Iraq war, the lies about the affordable care act, the lies about trickle down economics, the lies about “read my lips no new taxes”, Reagan’s Iran Contra Scandal, Nixon’s Watergate, Chris Christie’s George Washington bridge closure, Gov. Bob McDonald corruption case, Gov. Rick Scott pleaded the fifth about 70 times in his fraud case, etc. etc. etc. That’s the Character, honesty and credibility, you’re talking about.

Niripsa K.

Don’t be stupid. You know, and everyone else knows what he means. You’re just being a jerk.

Ted Crawford

It is after all what Progressives do best!

Niripsa K.

Touche!

John Smith

I don’t know what he means. The statement alone is dishonest, and this guy wants honesty? Show me the shining example of character, honesty, and credibility on either side?

Daiv

John just likes to pass gas in a crowded elevator.

Tim Ned

Did Obama care reduce your premiums by 2500.00 per year? Did Obama care permit you to keep your plan?

My answer is no to both. Had to change my plan for my company and my cost increased $7k per year on me and my wife alone.

But the question is, if you want to answer, who pay’s yours?

Morell who was deputy director of the CIA under Obama states the fact that the intelligence drove the administration and he also asserts the intelligence drove the failure of the Obama administrations failure with the Arab spring. These are called “Facts”.

Always look for a liar to drive the lie talking point. Good job. Now look at the facts.

John Smith

You must have no experience buying insurance.

In your fantasy world insurance companies never raise rates, never cancel or change policies and doctors never leave a network. I’m sorry I can’t recommend any insurance companies that fit your fantasy.
“The origins of the so-called Islamic State go back to before Obama took office and stem from mistakes made at the beginning of the
war.

On May 23, 2003, U.S. viceroy, Paul Bremer, announced he was dissolving the
Iraqi army.

Mr. Bremer fired tens of thousands of military officers without pensions or severance. His order propelled the birth of an armed Sunni resistance among

ex-Iraqi officers, which morphed into al-Qaida in Iraq and ultimately the Islamic State.

Tim Ned

Again your facts are so wrong.

“You must have no experience buying insurance.”

Have been buying it for years and for companies. My fantasy insurance is no longer available and now against the law.

“The origins of the so-called Islamic State go back to before Obama took office and stem from mistakes made at the beginning of the war.”

Check your facts. If you make the case that ISIS originated in Iraq, why was it necessary for them to invade from Syria? Get away from the left wing websites.

John Smith

“Have been buying it for years ” then what was the big surprise? You might want to blame Romney and the Heritage Foundation. They developed the law and implemented it successfully in the state off Mass. That law was used as a model for the rest of the country. ISIS was started by many of the Suni Iraq generals and soldiers that the Bush Administration fired. It started as Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The truth will set you free.

John Smith

“Have been buying it for years ” then what was the big surprise? You might want to blame Romney and the Heritage Foundation. They developed the law and implemented it successfully in the state off Mass. That law was used as a model for the rest of the country. ISIS was started by many of the Suni Iraq generals and soldiers that the Bush Administration fired. It started as Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The truth will set you free.

Tim Ned

“”Have been buying it for years ” then what was the big surprise?”

Obama told me I would save money and that I could keep my plan. Not Mitt Romney.

One could say Baghdadi started ISIS in an American Prison.

However, you ask a lot of questions but divert so you don’t have to answer any of mine. I have been polite to address yours now you address a few of mine because that’s called debate.
Questions;
1) Why did ISIS invade from Syria.
2) Who pays for your health insurance.
3) Where is the evidence that the Bush administration drove the intelligence and not the other way around.
4) Why was the banner hung on the ship where GWB made his speech.

Set me free!

John Smith

The information is out there if you want it but it’s obviously you don’t. I don’t have time to bring you up to speed on all the facts.

“Why was the banner hung on the ship where GWB made his speech”? What does that have to do with the topic? Who’s diverting now?We certainly know it wasn’t because the war was over as Bush stated.
I don’t recall seeing Conrad Chun on TV or memorializing the ship or claiming the war was over. I did however see Bush do exactly that. In a less publicized incident, Rumsfeld also declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan on May 1, a few hours before Bush’s announcement.[15]
The question should be why did Bush use the banner and the speech to signify the end of the war in Iraq in May of 2003 when the war was anything but Over? Another case of “Faulty intelligence”? You’d have to ask Bush why he pulled that rediculous stunt? I just watched it on television like millions of other Americans. I can only guess that it was probably a good photo opp., he knew his low information base would buy it hook line and sinker, and he liked the weather in San Diego.
“Where is the evidence that the Bush administration drove the intelligence and not the other way around”.
The head of British intelligence reported back to his government after meetings in Washington in June, 2002: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Alan Foley, the Director of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) told his people in late 2002 or early 2003: “If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.”
Why did ISIS invade from Syria?

“One could say Baghdadi started ISIS in an American Prison”
Yea an ignorant person could say that, and they would be wrong as you have been thus far.
The group originated as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
Under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, the ISI sent delegates into Syria in August 2011 after the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011. This group named itself Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām or al-Nusra Front, and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria, within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo.[35]
In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of his ISI with al-Nusra Front, and announced that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and “notorious intransigence”.[27][36]
I don’t have time to take you to school anymore. By the way you failed the test. See ya!

John Smith

The information is out there if you want it but it’s obviously you don’t. I don’t have time to bring you up to speed on all the facts.

“Why was the banner hung on the ship where GWB made his speech”? What does that have to do with the topic? Who’s diverting now?We certainly know it wasn’t because the war was over as Bush stated.
I don’t recall seeing Conrad Chun on TV or memorializing the ship or claiming the war was over. I did however see Bush do exactly that. In a less publicized incident, Rumsfeld also declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan on May 1, a few hours before Bush’s announcement.[15]
The question should be why did Bush use the banner and the speech to signify the end of the war in Iraq in May of 2003 when the war was anything but Over? Another case of “Faulty intelligence”? You’d have to ask Bush why he pulled that rediculous stunt? I just watched it on television like millions of other Americans. I can only guess that it was probably a good photo opp., he knew his low information base would buy it hook line and sinker, and he liked the weather in San Diego.
“Where is the evidence that the Bush administration drove the intelligence and not the other way around”.
The head of British intelligence reported back to his government after meetings in Washington in June, 2002: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Alan Foley, the Director of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) told his people in late 2002 or early 2003: “If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.”
Why did ISIS invade from Syria?

“One could say Baghdadi started ISIS in an American Prison”
Yea an ignorant person could say that, and they would be wrong as you have been thus far.
The group originated as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
Under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, the ISI sent delegates into Syria in August 2011 after the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011. This group named itself Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām or al-Nusra Front, and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria, within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo.[35]
In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of his ISI with al-Nusra Front, and announced that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and “notorious intransigence”.[27][36]
I don’t have time to take you to school anymore. By the way you failed the test. See ya!

Tim ned

“The information is out there if you want it but it’s obviously you don’t. I don’t have time to bring you up to speed on all the facts.”

Your lengthy opinions state otherwise.

“One could say Baghdadi started ISIS in an American Prison”

Not me, CBS news

Yes, I’ve read Joe Wilson’s opinions in the past. But he doesn’t address 1) how ISIS developed in Syria and 2) how the Arab spring played into that development.

Niripsa K.

The echo in here just keeps getting stupider and stupider. It was Obama who promised lower premiums; it was his program, after all. So Romney’s to blame? Good grief, Johnny, I know that you are trying to be funny but you really shouldn’t write your own material… it ain’t workin’.

John is always wrong. He must get his facts from the daily worker or MSN (same thing)

John Smith

“Mission Accomplished.”
George W. Bush, May 2003

“Always look for a clueless republican liar to drive the lie talking point. Good job. Now look at the facts”
“The story we’re hearing today is: Yes, it was a mistake. We wouldn’t do it again knowing what we know now. But we acted on information that just turned out to be wrong. But that is quite simply a crock. The Bush administration was at best in deep denial about the true costs of the invasion. And it lead the country to war based on claims that were quite simply willful deceptions – lies. It is very important to remember that before we invaded, Saddam Hussein actually did allow inspectors back into the country, thus undermining the key argument for following through with the threat of invasion in the first place. But the critical point is that we didn’t invade Iraq because we had “faulty” intelligence that Iraq still had stockpiles of saran gas. The invasion was justified and sold to the American public on the twin frauds of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance and the Saddam’s supposedly hidden nuclear program. Using the ambiguity of WMD code word the White House went to great lengths to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein might be on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. The problem with the phrase “WMD” is that it classes together totally dissimilar weapons. Chemical weapons get classed together with doomsday biological contagions and the ultimate terror weapon – nukes. But there was zero evidence of any imminent or even medium term threat of nuclear weapons. None. As much as the White House and the key administration war hawks like Vice President Cheney tried to get the Intelligence Community to buy into these theories, they never did. And to anyone paying attention, it was clear at the time this was nonsense and a willful deception. Looking back and looking at the time it has always been somewhat difficult to find the bright line where flagrant lying met willful self-deception. But the truth is painful and clear: Iraq wasn’t a good faith mistake. It was a calamity based on lies and willful deceptions”. In public the White House created a confection of sleight of hand, misleading uses of the phrase ‘WMD’ and slivers of evidence, either misleading, inconsequential or bogus, to create a totally misleading picture. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
This was quite simply a lie, and one which played a huge role in justifying and creating a climate of fear that made the invasion possible”.

You wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the head.

John Smith

“Mission Accomplished.”
George W. Bush, May 2003

“Always look for a clueless republican liar to drive the lie talking point. Good job. Now look at the facts”
“The story we’re hearing today is: Yes, it was a mistake. We wouldn’t do it again knowing what we know now. But we acted on information that just turned out to be wrong. But that is quite simply a crock. The Bush administration was at best in deep denial about the true costs of the invasion. And it lead the country to war based on claims that were quite simply willful deceptions – lies. It is very important to remember that before we invaded, Saddam Hussein actually did allow inspectors back into the country, thus undermining the key argument for following through with the threat of invasion in the first place. But the critical point is that we didn’t invade Iraq because we had “faulty” intelligence that Iraq still had stockpiles of saran gas. The invasion was justified and sold to the American public on the twin frauds of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance and the Saddam’s supposedly hidden nuclear program. Using the ambiguity of WMD code word the White House went to great lengths to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein might be on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. The problem with the phrase “WMD” is that it classes together totally dissimilar weapons. Chemical weapons get classed together with doomsday biological contagions and the ultimate terror weapon – nukes. But there was zero evidence of any imminent or even medium term threat of nuclear weapons. None. As much as the White House and the key administration war hawks like Vice President Cheney tried to get the Intelligence Community to buy into these theories, they never did. And to anyone paying attention, it was clear at the time this was nonsense and a willful deception. Looking back and looking at the time it has always been somewhat difficult to find the bright line where flagrant lying met willful self-deception. But the truth is painful and clear: Iraq wasn’t a good faith mistake. It was a calamity based on lies and willful deceptions”. In public the White House created a confection of sleight of hand, misleading uses of the phrase ‘WMD’ and slivers of evidence, either misleading, inconsequential or bogus, to create a totally misleading picture. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
This was quite simply a lie, and one which played a huge role in justifying and creating a climate of fear that made the invasion possible”.

You wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the head.

Tim Ned

“As much as the White House and the key administration war hawks like Vice President Cheney tried to get the Intelligence Community to buy into these theories, they never did.”

Can you point to the CIA director, NSA director, Russian intelligence officer, British, Danish or other service who assert your assertion as a mass conspiracy. You are spinning opinion not fact.

Mission accomplished. First I won’t support the assertions in his speech but here is why the banner was hung?

Fact;
“Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier’s 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying “It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew.” Wikipedia.

The rest of your rant is spewing opinion, just pass on the facts and enlighten me.

John Smith

“Conrad Chun said ” Nice Try.

The “Fact is George W. Bush said

“Mission Accomplished” displayed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003 .
Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq.
You’ll believe anything they tell you.

Bob Hadley

If you read the entire Wikipedia entry, you’ll see that the story went through some iterations. For example, the Whitehouse spokesman said that the Bush Administration handled the production of it but that the Navy actually put up the sign. In other words, the Bush Administration came up with the idea and had the sign made and then gave it to Navy personnel to hang up on the aircraft carrier.

But the question of far greater consequence is why the
invasion of Iraq? It’s at least questionable that it was because Sadam was suspected to have biological or
chemical or nuclear weapons. Was the Bush Administration really being straight with the American people?

Pres. Clinton and many others thought that Sadam still had some biological and chemical weapons (two types of WMD) from before the first Gulf War. This belief
was based at least largely on the cat-and-mouse games Sadam played with weapons inspectors.

On the other hand, the Pres. Bush and his administration put out the line that Sadam
was actively amassing these types of WMD – i.e. chemical and biological weapons. For example, VP Cheney went on “Meet the Press” to claim
that there was “no doubt” or “little doubt” (I forget
which) that Sadam was actively “amassing” WMD.

But the Bush administration went even further to raise the specter of nuclear war. They said that Sadam probably had a nuclear weapons program and that he was developing delivery systems that could reach the U. S. This defied the intelligence. The refrain repeated by Pres. Bush, Sec. Rice and perhaps others in the Bush Administration was “if you wait for a smoking gun, it may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Baby Boomers I’ve talked to say that this kind of talk is scary because of their childhood experiences – sirens, drills, rhetoric, etc. That’s
heavy stuff!

We do not know why Pres. Bush took us to war. The evidence suggests that members of his inner circle wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 for reasons other than WMD. My suspicion is that Pres. Bush was in way over his head. Apparently, he’s a decent and honest man who was swept into a whirlwind. My hunch is that Pres. Bush thinks the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. If so he could never admit it. If he did admit it, it’d be a tremendous assault on all the veterans and families of veterans will always suffer from the war.

The Bush administration waged a propaganda campaign for the invasion of Iraq. They made
up their mind that the invasion was desirable, then apparently designed a propaganda campaign. And they did so at about the time of the 2002 political
campaign.

My understanding was that the intelligence report that the Bush Administration gave to Congress was “sanitized” of the qualifying and dissenting
views in the report. Even if so, his does not completely absolve Congress. Many such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were probably against the invasion but
assented because of their political ambitions. If so, this was craven.

Why have hardly any prominent conservatives insisted on answers as to why Pres. Bush took us to war. What was he thinking? One explanation is that many conservatives favored the invasion at the time. Another is partisanship: they don’t want to give the Democrats an issue to club them with. Maybe they don’t want to cause the wounded Iraq vets and their families further anguish. But isn’t this such a critical issue that we, as American, must pursue it? This doesn’t mean we necessarily say it was a mistake, but at least the American people should be told the truth as to why we invaded Iraq. Anyone who demands answer regarding the slaughter at Benghazi certainly ought to demand answers regarding the Iraq invasion.

Bob Hadley

BTW, I’m not getting my info from “far-left” websites (which I rarely visit) or far-left sources. I watch a lot of Fox News. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, I watch Fox news even more than I now do.

John Smith

I agree.
The stories of the “yellow cake” and the “aluminum tubes” were fabricated and pushed hard by Cheney as absolute truths. They were also trying to make a connection between Iraq (Saddam) and Alqaeda that didn’t exist. And he was also pushing an energy policy that focused on the oil in Iraq. At the time U.S. consumption was high, U.S. and world supply was low and Iraq was sitting on a huge supply of oil and production in Iraq was a fraction of capacity.
Cheney felt that this was a threat to U.S. security but they didn’t want to this to be seen as The reason to go to war. Bush went on TV and made a plea to not destroy the oil wells and refineries stating that “These were the Assets of the Iraqi people”. As soon as we invaded we tried to immediately secure the Iraqi ry of energy but did nothing to secure other assets like their museum in Bagdad that was full of ancient artifacts.

You suggest that.
“Even if so, this does not completely absolve Congress. Many such as John Kerry .
and Hillary Clinton were probably against the invasion but assented because of their political ambitions. If so, this was craven” This may be true but I think it went even deeper then that.There was a republican majority in congress until January 2007. At the time anyone that was not embracing the war was labeled as soft and called unpatriotic. President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
I don’t know if this was directed at members of congress or other countries. Hillary Clinton made a similar statement directed at the world. “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”[4]

Bob Hadley

Thanks John for your comment. Actually, my post was intended for Mr. Ned. But I misplaced it.
Yes, I know. I think Senators Clinton and Kerry were cowed into their votes, especially because Pres. Bush insisted on the vote coming before the 2002 elections, and the Rep. Congress obeyed. Karl Rove later denied this, but a little research showed this NOT to be true. That the Bush Administration was acting deceitfully and were bullying does not excuse the likes of Clinton and Kerry on such a deadly serious issue – if indeed they were truly against the invasion..
I don’t buy into the oil connection with the invasion of Iraq even though I’m aware of the circumstantial evidence. Rather, I think the small band of neo-cons in the Bush Administration were true believers. I remember shortly before the Iraq invasion, Larry Eagleburger (from Pres. Bush I’s administration) when talking about the advocates for war. He singled out Asst. Sec. Wolfowitz(sp?) as being dangerous.

John Smith

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Bob.

You are a true gentleman.

It is refreshing change from the close minded people that just want to deny everything and attack with nasty name calling. I use to side with the Republicans but during the Bush Administration I could not believe what was happening. I started to do a lot of research and continue to do so. I was astonished by what I found. The war angered me deeply with all the lost lives. My anger was compounded by the financial crash and the continually growing U.S. debt.

I can’t understand why we didn’t just focus on getting Bin Laden and get the job done. Why was Iraq such a distraction? America would have been behind that
100%. That was the righteous fight.

If he was able to successfully get Bin Laden he could have regrouped and addressed other threats where they existed.

John Smith

“Conrad Chun said ” Nice Try.

The “Fact is George W. Bush said

“Mission Accomplished” displayed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003 .
Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq.
You’ll believe anything they tell you.

Tim Ned

I never argued this point. But I bet before my post you had no idea why the banner was hung. That’s assuming you don’t believe Wikipedia is supporting a conspiracy.

Zack

Those of us who served in the military know the difference between a mission and a war. Those who know nothing about the military show their ignorance by returning to this banner time after time.

John Smith

Thanks for your service to this great country.
Apparently the Commander in Chief at the time, George W. Bush didn’t know the difference. “Those returning to this banner time after time” as you say are merely acknowledging what you are saying, and pointing out that ignorance.

Tim Ned

Good point Zach. Thanks for your service indeed!

brickman

As someone who also served in the army, I will point out that tbey never declare war.

Bob Hadley

If you read the entire Wikipedia entry, you’ll see that the story went through some iterations. For example, the Whitehouse spokesman said that the Bush Administration handled the production of it but that the Navy actually put up the sign. In other words, the Bush Administration came up with the idea and had the sign made and then gave it to Navy personnel to hang up on the aircraft carrier.

But the question of far greater consequence is why the
invasion of Iraq? It’s at least questionable that it was because Sadam was suspected to have biological or
chemical or nuclear weapons. Was the Bush Administration really being straight with the American people?

Pres. Clinton and many others thought that Sadam still had some biological and chemical weapons (two types of WMD) from before the first Gulf War. This belief
was based at least largely on the cat-and-mouse games Sadam played with weapons inspectors.

On the other hand, the Pres. Bush and his administration put out the line that Sadam
was actively amassing these types of WMD – i.e. chemical and biological weapons. For example, VP Cheney went on “Meet the Press” to claim
that there was “no doubt” or “little doubt” (I forget
which) that Sadam was actively “amassing” WMD.

But the Bush administration went even further to raise the specter of nuclear war. They said that Sadam probably had a nuclear weapons program and that he was developing delivery systems that could reach the U. S. This defied the intelligence. The refrain repeated by Pres. Bush, Sec. Rice and perhaps others in the Bush Administration was “if you wait for a smoking gun, it may come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Baby Boomers I’ve talked to say that this kind of talk is scary because of their childhood experiences – sirens, drills, rhetoric, etc. That’s
heavy stuff!

We do not know why Pres. Bush took us to war. The evidence suggests that members of his inner circle wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 for reasons other than WMD. My suspicion is that Pres. Bush was in way over his head. Apparently, he’s a decent and honest man who was swept into a whirlwind. My hunch is that Pres. Bush thinks the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. If so he could never admit it. If he did admit it, it’d be a tremendous assault on all the veterans and families of veterans will always suffer from the war.

The Bush administration waged a propaganda campaign for the invasion of Iraq. They made
up their mind that the invasion was desirable, then apparently designed a propaganda campaign. And they did so at about the time of the 2002 political
campaign.

My understanding was that the intelligence report that the Bush Administration gave to Congress was “sanitized” of the qualifying and dissenting
views in the report. Even if so, his does not completely absolve Congress. Many such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were probably against the invasion but
assented because of their political ambitions. If so, this was craven.

Why have hardly any prominent conservatives insisted on answers as to why Pres. Bush took us to war. What was he thinking? One explanation is that many conservatives favored the invasion at the time. Another is partisanship: they don’t want to give the Democrats an issue to club them with. Maybe they don’t want to cause the wounded Iraq vets and their families further anguish. But isn’t this such a critical issue that we, as American, must pursue it? This doesn’t mean we necessarily say it was a mistake, but at least the American people should be told the truth as to why we invaded Iraq. Anyone who demands answer regarding the slaughter at Benghazi certainly ought to demand answers regarding the Iraq invasion.

BTW, I’m not getting my info from “far-left” websites (which I rarely visit) or far-left sources. I watch a lot of Fox News. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, I watch Fox news even more than I now do.

Tim Ned

“But the question of far greater consequence is why the invasion of Iraq?”

Look at the original rant by Smith. I addressed two issues in his rant; 1) the great health care lie; and 2) the intelligence reporting.

I have not read yet Michael Morell’s book but I have seen some interviews and will be reading the book in the near future. I believe it will provide some insight into the failures of intelligence and the failures of the Bush administration. From what I have seen in the interviews is that perhaps his book will also shed light on failures of the Obama administration interrupting intelligence based upon the Obama Mideast policy.

Bob Hadley

My post was a spin-off of part of your post. I have not yet read Morell’s book either but, like you, have seen some interviews. But what I addressed above was not the intelligence failures or the failures of the Bush Administration, but the real reason Pres. G W Bush took us to war? Once when confronted with the dearth of WMDs in Iraq, Pres. Bush said there were other reasons as well to invade Iraq. Well, what were the other reasons Pres. Bush had? And what was the real reason? I think we need some answers.
I don’t think Pres. Bush can answer these questions. I think he’s doing the right thing: remaining silent. He can’t say anything that might intensify the anguish of all the injured Iraq war vets and their families. But I suspect that he was irate at Sadam over trying to murder his father to begin with. Then, I think he was overwhelmed by the true believers in his administration. But I’m just making an educated guess. Before the invasion, Larry Eagleburger of Pres. Bush I’s administration called the likes of Asst. Defense Sec. Wolfowitz dangerous.
Another question I addressed is why so many conservatives do not demand answers to these questions and why so many conservatives reflexively try to shut-down these questions. I suggested a few answers – fear of partisanship disadvantage (why be put on the defensive?), embarrassment at having supported the invasion. But as patriots, why don’t these conservatives rise above these concerns to address such deadly serious issues like they insist liberals ought to do about the Benghazi tragedy? Shouldn’t they be livid at the thought that we started a war quite possibly on false pretenses? It makes me suspect that Morrel is right: the Benghazi issue is more about partisan bluster than anything else.

Tim Ned

Ok Bob I didn’t want to get into my own opinion here but since you have provided yours, here it is

Bob, all my friends, liberals and conservatives, and even my dog know that there was no threat of WMD’s in Iraq after the invasion and investigation. I watched the Cheney interview on Meet the Press and he stated that Saddam was reconstituting the Nuclear weapons program and if I recall correctly he said there was no doubt about it. I should probably look it up on Utube but I’ll try to trust my memory. And of course me, my friends, and my dog know today he was wrong.

Bush never hid the results of the investigation that there was no viable nuclear or WMD program. And we can debate if the UN resolution gave us the right or not. When it comes to the UN, who cares.

My point is that the intelligence drove the sale of the war. And in the interviews I have watched from former CIA directors, a retired former FBI person I know personally, and now Michael Morells statements it appears that way. Did the Bush administration sell it? Yes.

I am not going to recap the atmosphere of the country at the time. I am not going to demand Clinton or Kerry to explain there support of the war nor others. I cannot remember who it was but it was a Democrat who voted against the war because he decided to walk across the street, review the intelligence himself and came to a total different conclusion. He was interviewed on Fox before the invasion. And it was not Obama. The story line that the administration sold a bill of goods to congress is bull. They could have taken the same stroll across the street as this representative and the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats didn’t.

I do not believe (remember I am writing an opinion) that GWB performed an invasion because he was bummed out about his dad.

As far as the injured veterans and those that served in the war I cannot speak for them. But those I have worked with through charities don’t seem to harbor the hatred as Smith displays in this thread. Perhaps many do but I do not know. They have bigger challenges to worry about. However, the biggest complaint I hear is the work they performed and sacrificed for is now being thrown out the window. But that’s a different subject matter.

Now you ask someone like me as a conservative why I am not seeking the same answers on the Iraqi war as I am asking for Benghazi. First I do not believe that Hillary Clinton would place our embassy staff purposely in danger and I don’t hold her responsible for what happened. I have worked with Ambassadors and their staff across the world and I have the utmost respect for what they do and their support of American business people like myself. Their service and commitment is totally unrecognized by most Americans. First, to me Benghazi is done and over deal. If Hillary ever had emails, etc., no one will ever get them because they are scrubbed. However, when Susan Rice went out on every Sunday news programs and sold this as a spontaneous demonstration; me, my friends, and my dog never bought it. I suspect you didn’t either. Had this not happened and had they simply came out and announced that a terrorist attack occurred and they would investigate and actually investigate it, no problem.

Smith brings up Ronald Reagan’s corruption for Iran contra. After the investigation Reagan came on national TV and stated that what he believed to be the truth was wrong. Perhaps you remember that.

You have the right to support what ever you believe about Bush. But as a conservative, the facts are out. There were no WMD’s or Nuclear Program.

macveen

And you know all of this how? Where are your “facts”? Your diatribe against Bush & Cheney is nothing but typical leftist talking points & opinion. You fail to cite even one actual fact re: genesis of the Iraq war.

John Smith

The facts are there not my opinion. You put the Ignore in ignorance.

macveen

My last reply stands unanswered by John (or whatever your name).

John Smith

The facts are there not my opinion. You put the Ignore in ignorance.

Daiv

He knows nothing. He’s a Chatty Cathy. The liberals wind him up, pull the string and he start spinning around the room shooting his mouth off. He has an opinion and then starts contriving “facts” to fit his biases. All the Democrats must have been in on the deception since they voted for it. Oh, I forgot the where against before they were for it or was it the other way around. You notice how he wants to believe Bush did not honorable intentions and assumes he deliberately went to war because?

Ted Crawford

It’s simply Cherry-Picked facts and statistics, ignoring the other facts, such as we, in fact everybody knew Saddam had WMD, he’d used them often in the past! Most notably on the city of Halabja, Iraq in 1988, killing over 8000 Kurds! It also ignores the fact that ISIS has captured around 100 pounds of “Yellow Cake” in Iraq! THEY WERE IN THERE !

Daiv

I’d invade IRAQ again in a hear beat. We should have toppled the government of Iran too just to even the playing field. The major problem was the strategy. The Bush administration didn’t know what to do after we won militarily and the failure or the troops to disengage once his government was toppled. We won the war but did know how to secure the peace. This house to house fighting and hearts and mind crap was just stupid. It sounds like something a liberal would do. Hussein was a lawless dictator who tried to have Daddy Bush assassinated. Plus he started a war over oil and gassed his own population. Quit making excuses for regimes and government that are plain despicable. Your splitting hairs just because you hate Bush. The IRAQ war proved 2 things. (1)The people that have the most faulty intelligence or lack there of are the Democrats. (2) That Democrats hate Republicans more than they love their country. They are cowards and hate mongers of the first degree. There is no lie too big that they wouldn’t tell about Bush to try and get him out of office even if it meant the lives of America Servicemen. The Democrats gave aid and comfort to the enemy while soldiers were in the field. Bush was too timid to call the Democrats out on this but we all know they did it.

John Smith

“I’d invade IRAQ again in a hear beat” Does it make you feel good to be as dumb as a Bush. Congratulations.
News flash. Saddam and Iraq didn’t attack the U.S. on 9/11/01. It was Alqaeda and Osama Bin Laden . You know the guy that Bush couldn’t get? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

“We won the war” You’re funny.

John Smith

“I’d invade IRAQ again in a hear beat” Does it make you feel good to be as dumb as a Bush. Congratulations.
News flash. Saddam and Iraq didn’t attack the U.S. on 9/11/01. It was Alqaeda and Osama Bin Laden . You know the guy that Bush couldn’t get? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

“We won the war” You’re funny.

Ted Crawford

Bush ’43’ did overstate the conditions, however in fairness to him, something I’m not to want to be, he couldn’t have possibly known that Obama was a complete incompetent, or, failing that complicit! It’s absolutely astonishing that he was unable, or more likely unwilling, to create a fairly standard Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq! Any Junior Level Diplomat could easily have accomplished that, had they truly intended to!

John Smith

You’re a riot! Bush totally mismanaged the war and you’re calling Obama Incompetent. What does that make Bush a bafoon?
You’re response.” It’s absolutely astonishing that he (meaning Obama) was unable, or more likely unwilling, to create a fairly standard Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq! Any Junior Level Diplomat could easily have accomplished that, had they truly intended to”!
That’s absurd. If it was so easy then why couldn’t Bush create one that fits the narrative that republicans so falsely believe? Which is it was he unable or more likely Unwilling?

He’s the one that signed the Status of Forces Agreement removing U.S. Troops by December 2012. That’s AFACT. If Bush and all republicans wanted a SOFA that left troops their longer why didn’t they put that in the SOFA that Bush signed. I guess Bush was more incompetent then a “Junior Level Diplomat.

Ted Crawford

Again, Bush, for all his many faults, created a Status of Forces Agreement assuming a reasonably competent President would properly execute the conflict! After four years of Obama’s mismanagement, the situation had significantly degraded from what should have been reasonably expected!

John Smith

“assuming a reasonably competent President would properly execute the conflict!” That’s funny. Bush was totally clueless incompetent president. “The war will last two weeks to a month”, “the Iraqi’s will treat us as liberator”, “Mission Accomplished May 1, 2001”, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong”

” After four years of Obama’s mismanagement” We all know what a great manager Bush was. Worst Foreign policy decisions in U.S. history.
Worst terrorist attack in U.S. history
Worst Financial Crisis in U.S. history

John Smith

“assuming a reasonably competent President would properly execute the conflict!” That’s funny. Bush was totally clueless incompetent president. “The war will last two weeks to a month”, “the Iraqi’s will treat us as liberator”, “Mission Accomplished May 1, 2001”, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong”

” After four years of Obama’s mismanagement” We all know what a great manager Bush was. Worst Foreign policy decisions in U.S. history.
Worst terrorist attack in U.S. history
Worst Financial Crisis in U.S. history

Ted Crawford

“to argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, …is like administering medicine to the Dead!” Thomas Paigne Good Day to you Comrade!

brickman

Do you mean Thomas Paine? I would think that a real American could spell his name correctly.

Ted Crawford

It’s much more likely that a real American would be more concerned with the message than spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and grammatical errors !

These, and disingenuous semantics, are but transparent excuses allowing a Narcissistic, Academic Elitist, extreme Leftist to deny what is painfully obvious!

brickman

Your continual sloppy use of English shows a sloppy thought process that no doubt informs your political opinions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Ted Crawford

Really?
“Nothing in education is so astounding as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts!” Henry Adams
“We are faced with a paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought!” Bertrand Russell
Perhaps, indeed very likely, you consider these men to have been intellectually inferior to yourself, so consider this;
“The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education!” Albert Einstein

brickman

You will notice that these brilliant men write in correct standard English. The order that it takes to do that is what makes their thought process to function properly. YOU are not one of these thinkers.

brickman

These gentleman are not railing against basic literacy, which is where your shortcoming is.

John Smith

You’re a riot! Bush totally mismanaged the war and you’re calling Obama Incompetent. What does that make Bush a bafoon?
You’re response.” It’s absolutely astonishing that he (meaning Obama) was unable, or more likely unwilling, to create a fairly standard Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq! Any Junior Level Diplomat could easily have accomplished that, had they truly intended to”!
That’s absurd. If it was so easy then why couldn’t Bush create one that fits the narrative that republicans so falsely believe? Which is it was he unable or more likely Unwilling?

He’s the one that signed the Status of Forces Agreement removing U.S. Troops by December 2012. That’s AFACT. If Bush and all republicans wanted a SOFA that left troops their longer why didn’t they put that in the SOFA that Bush signed. I guess Bush was more incompetent then a “Junior Level Diplomat.

After months of assurances that it wasn’t going to happen, we lost our excellent insurance plan, & are now paying 12k more for a considerably lesser one (family of three, one of whom has been disabled since birth). Liars, all.

Tim Ned

Yes they are!

Daiv

Knee jerk dumbbell. All these phony chargers are nothing more than smears. You have nothing to support your wild partisan contentions. Have you been out goose stepping just to keep in shape. Just admit you hate anyone that has an R in front of their name. And that you will vote Democrat no matter how corrupt they are. Just say it and quit making excuses. Most of the Republicans mentioned have more honesty and integrity in their little finger than every Democrat holding office combined. Its obviously impossible for Democrats to tell the truth it must be in their DNA, what else can it be. The only thing Democrats do is accuse other people of wrong doing so they can excuse themselves of their crimes against humanity.

John Smith

“Its obviously impossible for republicans to comprehend the truth it must be in their DNA, what else can it be”

beniyyar

Of course this clown Stephanopolis should not cover any political events, and probably should be suspended for his unethical behavior, contributing huge sums of money to a potential Presidential nominee and then acting as if he were objective. But his station and he himself are too corrupt to even truly accept the enormity of his behavior, they figure it is only bad if they catch you!

John Smith

“Rush’s boss, Fox News, says what he did was nothing more than an “honest mistake.” He apologized, Fox explained, so let’s move along ”
Now I get it Bernie… you mean like the way they did when the news of O’Reilly’s fabricated stories came out only minus the apology? That was a ratings thing wasn’t it?

paulbopko

Smith? That cannot be your real name. Be transparent.

Hammerin’ Hank

Seriously, dude?

John Smith

What? Too soon?

Niripsa K.

All of the networks could base their news organizations in the same building as the DNC headquarters… call it a “coincidence” and still get away with it. To most Americans the word “objective” simply means the Republicans disagreeing with the Democrats (as in “I object!). In short, they don’t care.

Jarob54

Big difference between Fox viewers and those who tune in ABC and other networks of such ilk. The Fox viewer is seeking the truth, supported by facts. The ABC viewer is seeking fluff, and a thrill up their leg.

Peep

I think Rush Limbaugh would make a great moderator for a Republican primary debate BUT, he would be an entertaining moderator for a Democrat primary debate.

Choo-Choo

Now Bernie it’s not fair to put the shoe on the other foot. Liberals have to get away with different standards because they are so compassionate. If the left and the Democratic Party didn’t have victimhood, and entitlement they would have no platform with which to run. They have no core beliefs unless you want to pick out the socialist ones.

John Smith

If the republican party didn’t have hate and fear they would not have a platform either.

gold7406

hear that drum beat? ‘war on women, war on illegals, war on minimum wage, war on the poor, war on labor.’ the left loves to scare their constituents, the boogie man is coming…’miss scarlett, the yankees are coming.’

John Smith

The right loves to scare their constituents, the boogie man is coming…’Mr. Hannity, the liberals are coming!
They’re coming to take your money, guns, bible and Christmas trees. Immigrants are invading, Obama, Ebola, the Affordable Care Act or Romney Care, and Muslims are going to kill us all. It must be true I heard it on Fox News.

Jeff Webb

>>The right loves to scare their constituents<<

Damn straight! It's just so shameless when those rascally Republicans say stuff like "they want to put y'all back in chains,"the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families, giving bosses the right to discriminate against women and deny their employees access to birth control coverage," and "what Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." Oh, wait…

BTW, you keep on posting duplicate comments, John. Before I check for glitches on this end, do you happen to know if it's happening on yours?

John Smith

The right loves to scare their constituents, the boogie man is coming…’Mr. Hannity, the liberals are coming!
They’re coming to take your money, guns, bible and Christmas trees. Immigrants are invading, Obama, Ebola, the Affordable Care Act or Romney Care, and Muslims are going to kill us all. It must be true I heard it on Fox News.

k962

But then again Democrats and Progressives always have a different rule book for their own favorites!

BaldEagle

Very good. Now, one more postulation for you, Bernie. Since the basic problem with government these days is a lack of honesty and integrity, what if one of the Republican-governor candidates jumped ship and ran as a democrat? Say Bush or Christie. Could this change how Washington works?

Marty Roewer

Bernard, one of your very best !! Wonder if the NYT will print it……

Ron F

Karl Rove is hired by Fox News and Brit Hume on Sunday said to Karl Rove when he claimed he was only a “pundit” so the disclosure requirements did not apply to him: “Pundits are journalists too. You write a column, right?”

SRay

What a lucid and cogent postulation when you reverse all of the parameters like that. Well done Bernie!

SkyCitizen

Bernie, thanks so much for your brilliant analogy of Rush working as a “journalist”. It really highlights the double standard Liberal media has reserved for themselves only.
To take it one step further what if Fox News allowed the most strident critics from both sides of the political spectrum to submit question to the interviewer. Howard Kurtz comes to mind. Politically manufactured issues could be eliminated. This alone would demonstrate respect for the viewers time and intelligence. I believe Fox news could take on a new look while emphasizing the contrast between Liberal media and true “Fair and Balanced” reporting.

B Miller

Why do the Republicans always react after a response to negative comments, untrue facts and accusations by Democrats? Where are the leaders who can take a proactive stance, and anticipate some of the negativity and accusations and respond immediately with an answer and not waste time explaining after. People are uninterested to listen to responses days after – they’ve already moved on. The negative statement is out there – front and center and that’s want people remember! Romney had to spend a lot of his time having to defend himself instead of laying out the true facts or information first. He should have had the support of the party. He only seemed to have indigent supports reacting surprisingly to stupid tricky and unfair questions. The free advertisement of these negative untruth was like a constant drumbeat with media. What the people remember is the negative comments not the eventual “deer in the headlight” response. Untruth needs to be anticipated and addressed quickly then it needs to be reiterated several times not just in response to a slick question but in anticipation while developing their own drumbeat of truth.

El_Tigre_Loco

Who said, “A lie travels twice around the world before the truth even gets its pants on.” Was it Mark Twain?

Gloria

Double standard anyone? T’was ever thus. And the beat goes on .

El_Tigre_Loco

“A lie told often enough, becomes the truth.” – Lenin

Gloria

Indeed!

Joh

Step-on-all-of-us should take a page out of the Val Kilmer Doc Holliiday role and try to say “My hypocrisy goes only so far”, but he never will. I do not watch ABC news or any other major networks’ news programs because I know which way they spin every news item. Fat Candy Crowley 86’d Romey during the debates and she has never corrected her statement. A pox on all of their houses

hearnow

I think it a great idea to enlist either for the Republican nomination race; Ill served for the general election.

Probus

Bernie, I realize this is something off the subject. In Nixon’s time there was no alternative media, only liberal ABC, CBS & NBC that continually demonized and destroyed him. Since then they continue with the same. I often wonder what facts could be missing from those years that might uncover him as a fine man.

Russ Perrine

Ask Bebe Rebozo. The banker knows everything. FYI…there were 4 major networks. PBS was very much a player during the Nixon years. John Mitchell tried to get them to defend his boss since their budget was mostly public funding.

El_Tigre_Loco

He did ‘normalize’ relations with China.

gold7406

The left loves selective condemnation, ‘I’m okay, you’re not okay.’
To guess one step further, I think ABC let him expense the donations, as a ‘down
payment’ toward future interviews with all 3 Clintons.

John Smith

“The left loves selective condemnation” Really?
As you and every other respondent to this article condemns Stephanopoulos, liberals, Obama, Clinton, Candy Crowley, “The Media” and anyone else that doesn’t agree with you, and then you claim hypocrisy. Too funny.

El_Tigre_Loco

It is not that they don’t agree with us, they don’t agree with the facts.

John Smith

Facts?Are you kidding? It took Jeb Bush’s brief moment of truth to finally get most republicans to admit that invading Iraq was a mistake after twelve years of denial.

Niripsa K.

I hear an echo in here…

John Smith

Facts?Are you kidding? It took Jeb Bush’s brief moment of truth to finally get most republicans to admit that invading Iraq was a mistake after twelve years of denial.

gold7406

the left is the personification of henny penny

stmichrick

You’re overlooking one thing Bernie. Steffy is, well, cute, and to your average ABC viewer that goes a long way. Combine that with a compliant leftish posture that doesn’t offend his colleagues and, hell, he’s a natural fit. You can’t expect him to remember all that political finance stuff when he only intended to help the sick and poor!

WVF

This was a hypothetical article which could be summed up in one sentence. Stephie Stephanopolous is not a serious journalist and should be ignored. BTW, we have 612 days left of Moocher and the Obamanation of America!

Lc Goodfellow

… Dam, that’s a long time, ….

WVF

True, but look at in a positive light. We have already lived through 2,300 days of Moocher and the Impostor, so we are on the downhill slide–only 612 days left!

Mark W. — former journalist

Succinct observation. If Bernie had an editor for this, he would have sent it back to Bernie with a note: “tighten it up.”

John Smith

Hey WVF 612 days left until Hillary takes over?
Thanks. I’ll mark my calendar, and wait for your next update..

WVF

John Smith, she has about as much chance as I do. Mark your calendar, because I expect that from Democrats. They all suffer from the Democrat Derangement syndrome (DDS), which posits that those afflicted are unable to think rationally and logically. I’ll keep you updated, because Hitlery Rotten Benghazi Clinton is going down faster than Monica Lewinsky on Slick and Slimy Billy-Boy!

John Smith

As apposed to Republican Derangement Syndrome (RDS).
The 9/11/01attack, and Iraq war republicans, have as much chance as you do. They’re going down faster then Chris Christie on a jelly donut.

John Smith

As apposed to Republican Derangement Syndrome (RDS).
The 9/11/01attack, and Iraq war republicans, have as much chance as you do. They’re going down faster then Chris Christie on a jelly donut.

WVF

I am not a fan of “big-boy” Christie!

El_Tigre_Loco

Deja vu.

VermontAmerican

The most egregious example of Stephy’s partisanship, and there are many of them, came during the Republican debates when out of the blue he asked Romney about contraceptives. Romney fumbled the answer until exasperatedly he asked, “Why is this an issue, George?” Charles Krauthammer has been reporting that Stephy reiterated the question 5 times. Thus was sparked the Democrats’ meme for the 2012 presidential race that Republicans were anti-women. Stephy is anything but objective. He’s a partisan hack.

KStrett

Stephanopoulos was clearly coordinating with the DNC to launch its war on women campaign. The question was so out of the blue and so off the reservation the GOP candidates were looking at him as if he had three heads. About a month later, the DNC rolls out Sandra Fluke.

It is transparently obvious what Stephanopoulos was doing, yet there were no repercussions for George. The media allowed him to get away with it.

The GOP needs to stop agreeing debates where the moderator is rooting for the other team. Would democrats ever agree to let Brit Hume or Bret Baier moderate a debate? No!

In fact, the democrats expect the moderator to be in the tank for the democrat candidate. When Jim Lehrer moderated the Romney/ Obama debate moderated it fairly, Obama lost and that is an understatement. After the debate democrats started attacking Lehrer.

Equos

It wasn’t out of the blue, I don’t understand why people keep saying this. It wasn’t like he just made up the question then and there, the questions are planned, and thought out before the debate even begins. This was a planned question, the “War on Women” was a planned narrative in advance. Stephanopoulos is not a journalist, he is a Democrat operative, and hack as you stated.

The other absurd thing is that the RNC was going to let him moderate another Republican debate for 2016. Part of the problem is the people in charge of the RNC, they are complete, and utter morons, and they continue to make the same dumb mistakes each election.

ksp48

Nothing to see here; move along. And they get away with it.

USMC 64-68

Goldberg introduced a large error in postulating that “at ABC News one is trusted to play fair.”

Wake up and smell the coffee Bernie – not one of the MSM outlets is engaged in “fair play.” They hired a political operative, a subversive, and they did it purposefully.

The leftist media has gone way beyond “Bias” and have become fully committed advocates and para-political members of the Commiecrats assault on America.

The Stephanopoulos debacle and the liberals amazement that he’s biased and a member of the Clinton Crime Family reminds me of the Whitaker Chambers book about the Alger Hiss communist spy situation. When Hiss was proven to be a Soviet spy, all the high State Dept. officials, who had the same Ivy League background as Hiss, said, “We can’t believe he’s a Soviet Spy, he’s just like us.” Exactly right and exactly like the MSM and what Steph has done. He’s just like them.

Ivy League like Harvard and Yale where most GOP has gone if they want to climb the political ladder: GWB for example

KStrett

What does that have to do with Stephanopoulos being a liberal political activist being presented as a non-biased journalist?

El_Tigre_Loco

Didn’t BHO attend one of these schools? The Kenyan born head of the Law Journal?

brickman

William Kristol contributes to GOP candidates like Ken Cuccinelli then supports him on tv and Bernie says nothing. Not to a charity supported by Cuccinelli but to his campaign. What a hypocrite.

ksp48

Huh?

brickman

Republican media people are allowed to be partisans even if on news programs. The excuse that Ted Crawford issues is their typical rationale. Stephanoppoulus didn’t contribute to a campaign, he gave money to a charity. I never saw anyone criticized for giving to the Red Cross when past GOP Cabinet officer and future GOP US Senator Elizabeth Dole ran it.

Ted Crawford

Kristol is employed as a Political Commentator, as is Bill O’Reilly for Fox and Rachel Maddow for MSNBC! Stephanopoulos is employed as a Hard-News Anchorman! Very different positions and responsibilities!

brickman

There is no such thing as a nonpartisan hardnews anchorman ( no caps, Ted) these days. Don’t tell me that you considered him anything other than a Dem mouthpiece. He contributed to a charity.

Niripsa K.

He contributed to a “charity”.

brickman

Yes, the Clinton Foundation is a charity , he did not contribute to a campaign. The media never makes that clear. Must be their ” liberal” bias.

And you can bet that Bill and Hillary were informed of the “donation” to their opaque “charity.”

brickman

So?

Jeff Webb

>>Yes, the Clinton Foundation is a charity<<

…that is run by longtime friends, political allies, & former employers of George, and had him serving as a moderator and awards judge for its political arm, before he "interviewed" Peter Schweizer.

Yeah, nothing to see here, Brick. lol

brickman

Stephanopolous gave money to a charity to help fight AIDS. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

Jeff Webb

>>Stephanopolous gave money to a charity to help fight AIDS<>I guess no good deed goes unpunished<<

And no good donation goes unrewarded.

brickman

Stephanopolous says that is why he donated. It’s probably why Elton John donated to tbe Clinton Foundation. I can’t say why Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump or the Walton family gave them money. Or why Condi Rice donated. Or why Mitt Romney, John McCain,and Colin Powell appeared at their fundraisers. They probably wanted to help the Clinton Foundation do its good work. But I might not be smart enough to figure that out:)

Jeff Webb

So, these donors prove there was no basis for what GS said about quid pro quo’s and PS wrote about the foundation?

>>But I might not be smart enough to figure that out:)
<<

No, more like you're too biased or partisan to admit the obvious.

brickman

So what quid pro quos did Trump, Gates, Walton, Rice, Romney, McCain, and Murdoch have with the Clintons?. Inquiring minds want to know

Jeff Webb

Boy, if only the McDonnell’s or Duke Cunningham had tried the “on several occasions nothing unethical took place” defense. lol

By all means, keep digging, Brick.

brickman

They were convicted on evidence. You haven’t produced one iota of proven criminal behavior. Just innuendo . There’s a joke there but this a family website:)

Jeff Webb

>>They were convicted on evidence. You haven’t produced one iota of proven criminal behavior.<<

Not the point, and your bringing up Trump & the others does nothing except distract.

Do you honestly not understand what I was getting at in my last comment?

I don't know if you heard what GS said on the Daily Show, or are aware of what PS mentioned in his book, but neither suggested that EVERY donation to the foundation involved ulterior motives.

brickman

I get your point. Donations by Democrats= ulterior motives. Donations by Republicans= pure motives. C’ mon man, do you even listen to yourself?

BTW, you still haven’t shown even one quid pro quo. Everything else you say is YOU deflecting.

Jeff Webb

>>I get your point<>Donations by Democrats= ulterior motives. Donations by Republicans= pure motives<>BTW, you still haven’t shown even one quid pro quo<<

Because I didn't give you a reason to demand one.

What is it about "Clinton Cash" you don't get? I never said it proved the Clinton's were guilty. Hell, Schweizer himself didn't either! He told GS his research revealed EVIDENCE of guilt, not PROOF, and the evidence merited an investigation.

I never suggested that every single donation had strings attached, I never inferred that from GS's statement to Jon Stewart or anything Schweizer has said, and I know corruption doesn't need to be present in all instances in order to have happened in SOME instances.

You suggested otherwise.You argued that if the likes of Donald Trump and John McCain had no QPQ, then the Clinton's surely made no such deals with anyone else.

Suppose there were evidence someone stole from you. How well do you think the investigation will go if the police automatically rule out any suspect who didn't steal from other people?

Anything else you need 'splained?

brickman

Stephanopolous said that donors get their picture taken with the Clintons and THEY hope it may lead to something. He never says that it does. Guess you never bought a drink for a woman in a bar. It doesn’t get you what you want.:)

You try to point out how the fact that every donation doesn’t lead to corruption but I’m asking you to show even ONE that does. You can’t.

The potential quid pro quids discussed in the Stewart interview are not in regards to the Foundation but rather in re the campaign. I agree. The Citizen’s United decision is leading to legalized bribery. Don’t see you writing condemnations of it, do I?

Jeff Webb

>>Stephanopolous said that donors get their picture taken with the Clintons and THEY hope it may lead to something<

>>He never says that it does<>Guess you never bought a drink for a woman in a bar. It doesn’t get you what you want<>You try to point out how the fact that every donation doesn’t lead to corruption<>but I’m asking you to show even ONE that does. You can’t<<

Again, I gave you no reason to ask, and certainly not three times. I didn't say the Clinton's did anything corrupt related to the CGI or the CFF, and given the info that has come to light thus far, I wouldn't. Now, would I be surprised if it turns out they did? Of course not, because these are highly corrupt people we're talking about.

On the original topic, my basic position is PS comes off a lot better than GS. The latter's credibility was already a bit shaky before the cameras were rolling, and nonexistent when all was said and done.

brickman

My screen name is Brickman because I’m from Brick NJ. Todaylet’s honor a son of Brick.

Out of curiosity, is the home town the only thing you & he have in common?

brickman

No. He served in the field artillery while I served in the Air Defense Artillery thirty years prior. We share St. Barbara. I see his parents occasionally. It seems that whenever I go to vote, they’re also there. I went on my usual websites this morning and although there were dozens of stories decrying Ms. Clinton, there was only one praising the people who gave their all for this country. Frankly, I’ m p+$$ed.

Jeff Webb

In any event, God bless Duffy and his family.

I was actually going to surprise my family this year by taking them to the nearby military cemetery, maybe make it a tradition now that the kids are getting old enough to grasp the meaning.

Thanks to 4 head colds, instead it’ll be a conversation with the older one about the fallen, and including them in grace and the bedtime prayer.

brickman

I advise a visit to Arlington if you’re in Washington with the kids. My dad took me there several times when I was a kid. Seeing the headstones ( which are not crosses despite what Dick Cheyney says) brings home the sacrifice of too many. I think it is the proper role of a father to teach his kids things like that and applaud your effort with yours.

Ted Crawford

Well that my be the case in your own little world according to brickman, but in the Real World there are such entities as Hard-News Anchorman and Political Analysts as well as Political Commentators!
What color is the sky in brickmanville today?

brickman

Since you are capitalizing “Real World” may I assume that you are referring to the MTV show

Given the tenure of your posts, there seems no limit what you might assume, with or without provocation! Perhaps the increased Sun Spot activity has caused a short in one or more of your cranial implants!

brickman

Hey, you limited your overcapitalization errors to two in that post. Maybe there is hope.

Tim Ned

“There is no such thing as a nonpartisan hardnews anchorman”

Agree to a point.

“Don’t tell me that you considered him anything other than a Dem mouthpiece.”

I never did.

But, had he donated to George Costanza’s human fund, No one would have cared.

brickman

Only professional Clinton haters care about this.

stmichrick

Kristol is not posing as a ‘journalist,’ brickhead.

John Smith

What is Mr. “wrong about everything” posing as?

Kristol argued that Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to the United States and its allies: “The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. Kristol ardently supported the Bush administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq. In 2003, he and Lawrence Kaplan wrote The War Over Iraq, in which he described reasons for removing Saddam. Kristol rejected comparisons to Vietnam and predicted a “two month war, not an eight year war” during a March 28 CSPAN appearance.

stmichrick

Bill Kristol has an opinion, like you do, and is more informed than you. No one is expecting a fair reportage or questioning of events from Bill, like ABC is positioning Steffy the Clinton operative. No one is falling for this charade like you are, John Smith.

Risty317

Genius…..Kristol is a politcal analyst. That means he is paid for his opinions…..he is supposed to express them. Stephanopoulos is a news anchor. He is supposed to be unbiased and unaffiliated. Most networks have a policy that their anchors, and news people should not make political donations. Gerogie boy has always carried water for the Clintons. The only hypocrite is you!

brickman

Stephanopoulous DID NOT make a political contribution.

Risty317

If you don’t think a donation to the Clinton Foundation is political………..then there is no use continuing the discussion.

brickman

It does not fund the Clinton campaign. I can’t help if you won’t face facts.Its major contributors span the political gamut from Bill Gates. to Elton John to the Walton family to Rupert Murdoch to Tom Golisano.

Risty317

Thank you for your concern…..but I don’t need your help. A donation to the Clinton Foundation does not directly fund a campaign, but it does fund access….(and a few thousand miles and one of their corporate jets). If your best source for material is Media Matters then……….well, all is lost.

brickman

Since you guys don’t like the truth if it is said by people that you disagree with, how bout this

I don’t know if Kristol has noted his contributions on camera or if he needs to mention them every time he is on camera (though you seem to have access to this information thus, it can’t be much of a secret) but, I do have a problem with anyone who thinks contributing to anything run by the Clintons is strictly a charity.
As Steppy himself said, there is always a quid pro quo with the Clintons.

brickman

I found the information on vpap.com by going through Ken Cuccinelli’s donor list. I did this because conservatives were complaining that the GOP establishment had not funded The Cooch. I checked to see how many consevatives had. Kristol and Brett Bozell were amomg those that did. The Stephanopolous contribution was just as transparent. How do you think that it became public? It was disclosed by tbe Clinton Foundation.

Tim Ned

Hmmm, if Kristol interviewed Stephanopoulos what would you call the event; Kistolopoulos?

TRex:ex

It’s worse. It’s reported that Stephanopoulos talks to Carvel and Rahm Emanuel every day. He injected the non-issue of banning contraception into the Romney debate. It’s clear that was a setup by political operatives.

Yep, to a large part. I don’t think anybody in the media has ever bothered to ask Stephanopoulos on the record if, before he asked Romney the question, he talked to Dem operatives about that question, that they cooked it up. That was the point where I turned the guy off and have never watched any of his programs since.

brickman

So you agree that he was never nonpartisan. Thanks for making my point.

MikeSr

This the best example of why the present Conservative Government of Canada has told the biased liberal progressive media cabal of Canadian Media Journalists the Prime Minister will not attend their usual “kangaroo-court set up” after their “Secret Meeting”.

After being subjected to the biased agenda in Four previous National Election televised debates the Conservative Party of Canada has decided to attend only the National Election debates organized by non-mainstream media and the Web accessible outlets for news.

Brhurdle

Personally, I see the previous associations with the Clintons as a much more serious indicator of bias then the donations. ABC has every right to utilize GS as a political analyst since he has proven skills and insights in those areas. However, they should have realized the obvious conflict of interest for him to interview Schweizer and allowing it to occur represents gross mismanagement by ABC.

Ted Crawford

Respectfully; Stephanopoulos ISN’T employed as a “Political Analyst” but rather as their Chief Anchorman for Hard-News! Very different job descriptions!

nickshaw

Do you read the articles or go straight to the comments, Ted?

Ted Crawford

Your point being???

nickshaw

I just seems like you missed Bernie’s point here.

Ted Crawford

I don’t think so. Bernie made a very valid point here, in my opinion. I was perhaps unnecessarily pointing out the distinct difference between a “Political Analyst” and a “Hard-News” Anchorperson!
Partisanship is to be expected in an Analyst, but is totally unacceptable for any Hard-News Journalist!

lark2

The media elites are just sickening … and the Republicans do an excellent job of playing stupid. That’s just the way it is …

gbandy

With someone like George the Clinton team correspondent running the debates the question will always be a “gotcha” itinerary. Why not put some guys who are smart and know what questions to ask? I would love to see Rush and Rove and certainly not some ultra liberal with their own agenda.

Seriously?! Rush and Rove are simply the other side of that same coin! Not a debate I would waste any time watching!

nickshaw

Conservatives have agendas too but, I can see Rush hitting both sides hard. Rove, not so much.

John Smith

Wow, That’s a great idea! I think we would all love to see the comedy that Rush and Rove would bring to the event. Maybe even Trump. That would complete the circus. I would pay to watch that spectacle.

Jake Huff

As always, the leftists are for freedom of expression…as long as you freely agree with them. Rules, regulations, laws, even common sense do not apply to them. They may do whatever they please and with impunity, as long as the “ends justifies the means.” This is also true with many on the GOP side of the aisle. Make no mistake. Neither side is without sin, so to speak. But sin is okay if you lean to the LEFT. If you lean RIGHT, sin is…well, SIN and sinners must be held accountable. But if you’re on the LEFT, there is no sin, so whatever you do is just fine, again, as long as the ends justifies the means.

What a screwed up mess our political system is. And it is perpetuated by the lame stream media. Stop the world! I want to get off!

You want to speak about Freedom of Expression? Who has the power to force TV to put certain shows on later at night if THEY think its immoral or fragile little brains will be damaged for life? Radio, the same thing, where certain words will destroy soneones life, and Library’s to ban certain books? The Smithsonian for all these same reasons, and more? And Movies to have them rated R and PG13? These people who are in organizations that have the power to control what the public reads, sees, hears, that is offered with public funds are Conservative and Christian. I’d say they are the ones who do the most censoring of all!

John Smith

I agree. As a conservative I think it’s fine that Jeb Bush openly didn’t officially declare his candidacy for president, so that he could violate the campaign finance laws. I’m good with that.

Ted Crawford

Were He, Roger, to do that , one would expect and certainly hope that the viewership would take a serious dip!!
Limbaugh is a radical entertainer, that often exposes the truth, and “White-Board Boy”, Rove hasn’t been right, about anything, in over a decade!

nickshaw

I would hope that our side would have the principles to administer that hit to viewership, unfortunately, I don’t think it would.

Seattle Sam

Liberals simply have different rules. Diversity in a university means 95% of the faculty votes Democrat and 90% of those invited to speak on campus are liberals. Objectivity in the media means going after the evil thoughts of people on the right while praising the correct thinkers on the left. And when your rules result in your side winning, why would you feel a need to change them?

Liberals of course are diverse because its not liberal ideology that wants homogenous world, that Conservative ideology with black an white rules, beliefs etc. also, Red states have the lowest IQs, highest Highschool drop out rate, highest percentage of Divorce, single parents, unplanned pregnancies. All of which Conservative claim is the reason the world is a mess. These states obviously don’t produce the majority of Professors and teachers, many think the world is only 6 thousand years old. What college or university would hire them other than religious schools? There aren’t that many. So basically it’s their own fault they are in the predicament they are in, and personal responsibility is a big deal to conservatives. Lol

Lc Goodfellow

The Internet may not make you any smarter,
but it will make you think you are.

The rest of us will still have our doubts !

wildjew

The political left looks to utterly corrupt. George Stephanopoulos is symptomatic of the corruption of the left. I don’t like blind partisans of any political stripe. I lost a lot of respect for Rush Limbaugh during the Bush years. Is there a prominent Islamic jihadist Rove did not bring into the Bush White House or into the Bush campaign? If Republicans again allow Karl Rove to pick our next nominee we could be just about finished. Limbaugh isn’t much better.

Radical right-winger

Why don’t you get join the democrats. You whine to much.
Stop picking on Limbaugh and rove

wildjew

Are you prepared to defend them when it comes to the global jihad, Israel, Bush’s dishonesty about Islam, etc.?

Radical right-winger

I have no idea what you are talking about?
You sound like a nut job.
You have a hot nut for Israel?

wildjew

See my post just above.

Ted Crawford

The fact that you have “NO IDEA” is almost certainly why you advocate for Limbaugh and Rove!

Radical right-winger

You’re nuts. Cut and paste bullsht by an unknown jack aass lunatic author
About an event no one heard of is not prima face evidence of anything but
A fantasy planted in your narrow minded skull

Ted Crawford

By “no one heard of”, you, of course mean “YOU’VE never heard of” , which is the exclamation point to my original assertion!

Radical right-winger

I’m a political junkie
If I never heard of it then it doesn’t exist

Ted Crawford

Okey-Dokey then! DUH!

wildjew

I am a forty three plus year registered Republican. I am not a “radical right-winger.” I am an independent conservative. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I hoped he would be different from his father. I suppose he was but in some ways he wasn’t. When it came to the Saudis (who were up to their necks financing the 9/11 attacks) he wasn’t any different than his father.

wildjew

Paul Sperry wrote: “Another Muslim activist cleared for entry (into the Bush White House) was Sami al-Arian, an alleged founder of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who is now in jail on related terrorism charges.

He was invited along with Abdul Rahman al-Alamoudi and some 160 other AMC members, to a meeting at the White House on June 22, 2001. The host was none other than Karl Rove, who used the meeting to talk about the White House’s efforts to embrace the Muslim community. Al-Arian got a front row seat. How he even got into the building is a mystery, however. Al-Arian had been under federal investigation for suspected terrorism ties for the previous six years, something that had been reported in both the media and congressional testimony at the time.

And Alamoudi got past White House security despite voicing support for the U.S.-designated terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah just eight months earlier. In fact, he shouted his support for them during a hostile anti-Israel rally involving thousands of Muslims across from the White House just days before the 2000 election.

Here is a transcript of his October 28 remarks in Lafayette Square: I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support this Hamas here? Anybody’s [sic] is a supporter of Hamas here? Anybody’s [sic] is a supporter of Hamas here? [cheers] Hear that Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas! Allah akbar [Allah is great]. I wish to add here I am also a supporter of Hezbollah! Anybody supports Hezbollah here? Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [cheers] I want to send a message . . . My brothers, this is the message that we have to carry to everybody. It’s an occupation, and Hamas is fighting to end an occupation. It’s a legal fight. Allah akbar! Allah akbar!

“It was an embarrassing irony. At the very moment Muslim terrorists struck Washington, the White House was working with militant Muslim activists to deny law enforcement an important anti-terrorism tool. And the strange alliance has not ended.

How could this come to pass? Rewind to 1997.

Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry

I agree. “Just days after 9/11, wealthy Saudi Arabians, including members of the bin Laden family, were whisked out of the U.S. on private jets”.

Ted Crawford

By the way, before you imply anyone should become a Democrat, you might want to consider the shift left by people such as Rove, O’Reilly, and sadly, even Bernie, these past couple of years!

Radical right-winger

Sadly, you’re wrong.

YOU should become a democrat
Because your comments are convoluted and
And uninformed

wildjew

You make a valid point I think. From the perspective of American Jews who voted for and support Barack Obama, Bernie is a “right-winger.”

Ted Crawford

From the perspective of a moderate Conservative, who began his political activism as a Liberal Democrat in 1968, Bernie has shifted, at least since the 2012 election, from Center-Right to Center-Left!
McCain, Graham, Collins, McConnell and Boehner shifted from center left to mid-left in that same time window!

wildjew

You’ve been following Bernie longer than I have. On what issues has he shifted toward the left? The issues that are most important to me, national security, the global jihad, Middle East, Israel, etc., I cannot say I’ve seen him write or say anything much about it. On these issues Bill O’Reilly leans left. O’Reilly thinks should the U.S. or Israel bomb or destroy Iran’s nuclear sites it will be “world war III.” I used to post criticisms of his weak (pusillanimous) stances on his Facebook page. He banned me. As did (surprisingly) Mark Levin who properly rails against Sen. McConnell almost nightly. So much for speech and the free exchange of ideas. People in my district urged our Republican Congressman to vote against John Boehner when he ran again for Speaker early this year. Boehner stripped my Congressman of his committee assignment. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Boehner works to remove these 25 or so “rebels” from Congress come re-election time.

Ted Crawford

It seems that Mr. Goldberg supports Common Core and an acceptance of millions of Illegal Aliens. While not as glamorous as a Nuclear Iran or ISIS, this study degradation of America’s value system, might be capable of destroying America without a single shot being fired!
He also seems to agree with O’Reilly’s Lindeberghesque view of Iran, seemingly ignoring that Iran intends to strike, with or without any provocation! Better, by far, now than after they finalize their, now guaranteed, Nuclear Program!

wildjew

I don’t know enough about Common Core to comment. Conservatives believe education standards are best left to the state and (better) local level. If Bernie supports some kind of amnesty for illegals, then he supports Barack Obama’s position. Hope you are mistaken. I cannot think of a position Obama has adopted that I support. If I did support something Obama supports, I’d be ashamed to say so. When it comes to nascent nuclear Iran, Charles Lindbergh is an apt comparison for Bill O’Reilly. As a self-described historian who co-authored a biography on Patton (absent his known racism) his position is shocking.

I wrote: “The political left looks to utterly corrupt. George Stephanopoulos is symptomatic of the corruption of the left,” as this piece points out. So is Barack Obama. Can you imagine the outcry if it was Sean Hannity or Megyn Kelly we caught doing what Stephanopoulos did?

John Smith

Yea. Hannity and Kelly would never apologize.

wildjew

The sustained drubbing from the mainstream media would be merciless.

Lc Goodfellow

Down here on the ‘Border’ you would be one of the,
“crazy as a s*** house rat ” type.

Just an opinion!

wildjew

Why? What border are you referring to? The Mexican border?

obammy

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie… man, come on! First of all, EVERYONE with a brain has known since day one that G. Stephonopoulis has been in the tank for the Dems and ESPECIALLY the Clintons, for crying out loud. Like there was ever a doubt of which way he swings. Second, NOBODY expects honesty or integrity out of anyone associated with the Democrat party. They are the party of lying to get the things they want. Honesty and integrity is not in their DNA. And you know what? They like it like that. It’s all good with them to be liars and cheats. Heck, they keep on voting for more of the same. Sadly, the Republicans are too d*amn stupid and wishy washy to insist on honest moderation. Just look what they allowed to happen with Romney and Obama… Candy Crowley, the obama assistant? Seriously?

wildjew

That dog wouldn’t hunt or fight. Romney that is. Karl Rove’s and Rush Limbaugh’s man. Crowley and the left walked all over him. Romney’s foreign policy was little different from Obama’s foreign policy. They made a great team. Did you watch the last debate?

Chris O

Actually, I think Stephanopoulis is just plain tanked. 😀

Jack Bauer CIC

This is not related to the topic at hand but I think this I have a wonderful idea. Instead of bitching and moaning about Hillary Clinton not giving ANY interviews why doesn’t the media (both liberal and conservative) just IGNORE her completely and see how fast she comes around.

Wally C

I have thought and tweeted the same thing. The media doesn’t need her, but she needs the media. A complete vacuum of coverage would blow her mind.

chuck.tatum

I haven’t completely thought this through, but…
Why do Republicans need to debate each other at all? It only hurts the Republicans by the MSM. If Republicans must do primary debates they should limit it to less than 5.

wildjew

I thought the Republican primary debates were most helpful and enlightening (don’t know what I would do without them), especially when the topic turned to a litmus test for me, the global jihad, Islamic terror, etc. That is when I realized Mitt Romney was not fit to be our nominee but my warnings fell largely on deaf ears.

Russ Perrine

It would finally get MSNBC some numbers.

radiofreeamerica

Seems to me that Republicans should insist on unbiased moderators and journalist asking the questions or dont participate in the debates.Personally I*m tired and bored of these debates that have been going on since I was a kid(1960 kennedy vs. Nixon was the first.)Oh yes I know the MSM will be howling at Republicans boycotting their debate for the outrageous reason of demanding impartiality but I just think so many voters-especially the independents plus Republicans of course-are so tired of the obama administrations incompetence that MSM attacks regarding a boycott of the debates will fall on death ears.Oh well nineteen months to go.

Jeff Webb

I think the Republicans should demand, firmly and aggressively, that every moderator is either a full-on conservative (Limbaugh, Shapiro, Pavlich, etc.) or someone who, conservative or not, we at least know isn’t one to give Dems a free pass (J. Karl, S. Atkisson, M. Lee).

Let the Dems stomp their little feet until they’re exhausted, but make it very clear that it’s THEIR turn to get the short end of the stick.

That’s a not a bad idea. In 2008, the Dems refused to do a debate on Fox News. Conservatives criticized them harshly, but in the end, the general public wasn’t engaged enough to care, and the Dem candidates were spared the type of grilling the mainstream media had no trouble giving to the GOP candidates.

Why not play by THEIR winning rules for once?

Wally C

Play by their rules? because they know they couldn’t win under those circumstances.

Ted Crawford

Apparently the new Prime Minister of Canada, feels the same way! Hope it works out for him!

radiofreeamerica

According to UK blogger Alastair Campbell-no friend of conservatives-the recently reelected UK PM David Cameron refused to have debates with the Labour Party much to the chagrin of the left wing UK media.His blog was dated Mar 3,2015-alastaircampbell.org

radiofreeamerica

The recently reelected Conservative PM of the UK-David Cameron-avoided debates during his campaign for reelection,despite the Labour Party and left-wing media howling for such debates.He simply ignored them.Pollsters in the UK predicted his opponent,Ed Miliband,would easily defeat Cameron however his opponents were sorely disappointed as Cameron won his campaign without much difficulty.This British guy,Alastair Campbell -no friend of Cameron or conservatives-has a blog-dated Mar.5,2015- in which Campbell complains of Camerons lack of interest in debates.AlastairCampbell.org/blog/2015/05/03/camerons-ducking-of-the -tv-debates.

MSD

In 2008, with the exception of Joe Biden, all of the Democratic presidential candidates refused to appear on a Fox news presidential debate.

Only in your dreams would the Democrats allow Rush or Karl to be a moderator of a presidential debate. Hopefully at least one conservative will moderate a 2016 debate. But don’t hold your breath.

Demetrius Boutoqes

The idea of having anyone but like minded Moderators is lunacy, especially since that won’t be the case for Billary !!!

Bernie's Premium Newsletter

Sign up for FREE alerts and you’ll know when Bernie posts a new column. And you’ll get other great opinion pieces too!